Individual EDR files will follow the naming convention: [TARGET][MET][INSTRUMENT][PRODUCT].imgWhere [TARGET] is a single character denoting the observation target [(M)oon, (E)arth,( C ) alibration or (S)tar]; [MET] is a nine digit number reflecting the Mission Elapsed Time ofacquisition (with a single digit for partition which denotes a reset of the MET); [INSTRUMENT]is a single character denoting the instrument, e.g. ( R )ight NAC, (L)eft NAC, (M)onochromeWAC, ( C)olor WAC, (V)is WAC, or (U)v WAC; and [PRODUCT] is a single character todenote (E)dr.

--------------------

Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.

Here's a crop... ejecta blocks south of the fresh crater. Some of them hit the ground with enough horizontal velocity to roll away from the crater - these are the first boulder tracks I've ever seen away from steep slopes (Hey James!)

It's certainly counting up in seconds. I usually just make an Excel spreadsheet that takes the time quoted on an official release and the MET and then set up a formula that can calculate the date for any MET. But for LROC it doesn't really seem to be necessary, since they're putting the UTC time on all the Zoomify images. For instance this one which we're told is from Tue Aug 04 14:51:59 UTC 2009. Taking the whole nine-digit number as the date, it counts up from April 18, 2006, but I think it's more likely that the first digit isn't part of the counter, so it counts up from June 18 at 14:32:12. This was exactly 7 hours before launch. Maybe that was when they booted the spacecraft computer?

Sounds like the difference between UT and MST where the LROC operations center is. Maybe some time system confusion there. Presumably somewhere they have documented the definition of MET 0 in UT (or better, ET.)

I'm a little surprised they used MET; we usually use some arbitrary time like 0 Ephemeris Time ("epoch of J2000").

The first digit is probably what they meant by "a single digit for partition which denotes a reset of the MET".

I've seen clearer pieces of PDS documentation

--------------------

Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.

The "nacl" and "nacr" files use the convention that the LROC hardware uses, where are images have an arbitrary 32-bit ID, reported in the file names as 8 hex digits. You can't glean anything more from these filenames without having access to the commands.

Obviously the PDS releases will be cleaned up and conform to the EDR documentation; it seems these public releases are using various naming conventions. (I'm just speculating, I have nothing to do with this stuff.)

--------------------

Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.

I played with the images a little and did some basic editing, basically (but not limited to) reducing noise, sharpening and increasing contrast. Not as good as you can do it, but at least I tried. Imageshack and GIMP tricks.

The value after the M is the mission elapsed time of the observation. The second to last character in the name denotes the observation type (L = left NAC, R = right NAC, C = 7-band WAC, M = 1 band WAC, V = VIS-onlyWAC, U = UV-only WAC). The last character denotes the type of PDS product (E = EDR, C = CDR).

Here's a crop... ejecta blocks south of the fresh crater. Some of them hit the ground with enough horizontal velocity to roll away from the crater - these are the first boulder tracks I've ever seen away from steep slopes (Hey James!)

Phil

Yes, this one has alot of boulder tracks. Qualitatively, it is interesting how thin the dust layer is as evident of the difference between the width of some boulders and narrowness of their track. How deep is the soft stuff supposed to be?

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted.
Do not reproduce without permission. Read
here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the
individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer
UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent
of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence
over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.

SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is a project of the Planetary Society
and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep
this forum up and running by contributing
here.